A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Landing speeds for naval aircraft?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 23rd 06, 10:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
M. B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

Here is a topic for discussion.....

The E/F "Rhino" comes in fast and heavy. The gear on Nimitz class is
taking a heavy toll and is wearing out faster than the design was
intended.

The "Growler" will come in heavier and faster.

Can the current configuration of the arresting gear handle it and not
have catastrophic fatigue failure without major modification?



I've heard the arresting gear is being overhauled on USS Reagan IOT support
Operational Test for Growler.


Ads
  #12  
Old November 24th 06, 02:14 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
John Carrier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?


"M. B." wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Here is a topic for discussion.....

The E/F "Rhino" comes in fast and heavy. The gear on Nimitz class is
taking a heavy toll and is wearing out faster than the design was
intended.

The "Growler" will come in heavier and faster.

Can the current configuration of the arresting gear handle it and not
have catastrophic fatigue failure without major modification?



I've heard the arresting gear is being overhauled on USS Reagan IOT
support
Operational Test for Growler.


Of course, its a function of weight and speed (squared if I remember my HS
physics correctly). The old RA-5C was pretty heavy and fast, the Whale was
just heavy. The F-14 could come aboard at 52.8 (later 54.0 IIRC, don't know
for sure, never flew the airplane with proper engines), but the speeds were
in the mid 130's.

Of course, the big deal on the Rhino (Grihno?) is bring back, so while the
airframe is relatively light, if its weight gets up there and the speed gets
into the high 140's ....

R / John


  #14  
Old November 29th 06, 03:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?


fudog50 wrote:
Since the original question was about landing speeds, I assume you
mean traps?

Here is a topic for discussion.....

The E/F "Rhino" comes in fast and heavy. The gear on Nimitz class is
taking a heavy toll and is wearing out faster than the design was
intended.

The "Growler" will come in heavier and faster.

Can the current configuration of the arresting gear handle it and not
have catastrophic fatigue failure without major modification?


I have landed onboard Nimitz as well as other CVs same class in the
Phantom, which I think was 'faster and heavier' than the 'Bug' series
of A/C'...same for the RA-5 and Whale(altho I don't know if it was
faster coming aboard than the F-4)..why would the Growler and Super
bugs start to wear things out now?





On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:53:26 -0800, "W. D. Allen"
wrote:

The closer to the fuselage the greater the bending load on the wings due to
lift forces. But at the fuselage is where the "swing" hinges are typically
located, which makes for a complicated, and unnecessary, structural design
problem.

WDA

end

"DDAY" wrote in message
nk.net...
----------
In article , "W. D. Allen"
wrote:

Those swing wing aircraft disappeared for probably the same reason swept
wings are disappearing and ICBM rocket motor exhaust cone skirts are no
longer used. The performance increase was not worth the mechanization
complexity or maintenance.

Yep, that's the theory that I'm working toward--a change in the definition
of acceptable.

I recently saw an ad for an Indian airpower expo and it featured a sleek
concept model aircraft with swing wings. At first I was shocked and
wondered if this means that the Indians are actually considering building
such an aircraft. However, I soon noticed that the model appears to have
three engine inlets--two on either side (like an F-18) and a large ventral
one. That makes no sense and I think the model is notional. Other than
that, I haven't seen any serious consideration of swing wings in many
years.



D


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 917 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!


  #15  
Old November 29th 06, 03:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Frank Minich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

The RA-5C max trap was 50,000 pounds, at 139KIAS on-speed.
Maybe the numb-nutz has gone kinder/gentler since then.

Frank

wrote in message
oups.com...

fudog50 wrote:
Since the original question was about landing speeds, I assume you
mean traps?

Here is a topic for discussion.....

The E/F "Rhino" comes in fast and heavy. The gear on Nimitz class is
taking a heavy toll and is wearing out faster than the design was
intended.

The "Growler" will come in heavier and faster.

Can the current configuration of the arresting gear handle it and not
have catastrophic fatigue failure without major modification?


I have landed onboard Nimitz as well as other CVs same class in the
Phantom, which I think was 'faster and heavier' than the 'Bug' series
of A/C'...same for the RA-5 and Whale(altho I don't know if it was
faster coming aboard than the F-4)..why would the Growler and Super
bugs start to wear things out now?





On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:53:26 -0800, "W. D. Allen"
wrote:

The closer to the fuselage the greater the bending load on the wings

due to
lift forces. But at the fuselage is where the "swing" hinges are

typically
located, which makes for a complicated, and unnecessary, structural

design
problem.

WDA

end

"DDAY" wrote in message
nk.net...
----------
In article , "W. D.

Allen"
wrote:

Those swing wing aircraft disappeared for probably the same reason

swept
wings are disappearing and ICBM rocket motor exhaust cone skirts are

no
longer used. The performance increase was not worth the

mechanization
complexity or maintenance.

Yep, that's the theory that I'm working toward--a change in the

definition
of acceptable.

I recently saw an ad for an Indian airpower expo and it featured a

sleek
concept model aircraft with swing wings. At first I was shocked and
wondered if this means that the Indians are actually considering

building
such an aircraft. However, I soon noticed that the model appears to

have
three engine inlets--two on either side (like an F-18) and a large

ventral
one. That makes no sense and I think the model is notional. Other

than
that, I haven't seen any serious consideration of swing wings in many
years.



D


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 917 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!




  #16  
Old November 30th 06, 03:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?



Its a changed world. The Forrestals are now called "small decks" by
those grizzled salts that operated from them, and Rhinos are "huge".

Of course the gents who flew A-3s on the 27 charlies may have a
different perspective...


Frank Minich wrote:
The RA-5C max trap was 50,000 pounds, at 139KIAS on-speed.
Maybe the numb-nutz has gone kinder/gentler since then.

Frank

wrote in message
oups.com...

fudog50 wrote:
Since the original question was about landing speeds, I assume you
mean traps?

Here is a topic for discussion.....

The E/F "Rhino" comes in fast and heavy. The gear on Nimitz class is
taking a heavy toll and is wearing out faster than the design was
intended.

The "Growler" will come in heavier and faster.

Can the current configuration of the arresting gear handle it and not
have catastrophic fatigue failure without major modification?


I have landed onboard Nimitz as well as other CVs same class in the
Phantom, which I think was 'faster and heavier' than the 'Bug' series
of A/C'...same for the RA-5 and Whale(altho I don't know if it was
faster coming aboard than the F-4)..why would the Growler and Super
bugs start to wear things out now?





On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:53:26 -0800, "W. D. Allen"
wrote:

The closer to the fuselage the greater the bending load on the wings

due to
lift forces. But at the fuselage is where the "swing" hinges are

typically
located, which makes for a complicated, and unnecessary, structural

design
problem.

WDA

end

"DDAY" wrote in message
nk.net...
----------
In article , "W. D.

Allen"
wrote:

Those swing wing aircraft disappeared for probably the same reason

swept
wings are disappearing and ICBM rocket motor exhaust cone skirts are

no
longer used. The performance increase was not worth the

mechanization
complexity or maintenance.

Yep, that's the theory that I'm working toward--a change in the

definition
of acceptable.

I recently saw an ad for an Indian airpower expo and it featured a

sleek
concept model aircraft with swing wings. At first I was shocked and
wondered if this means that the Indians are actually considering

building
such an aircraft. However, I soon noticed that the model appears to

have
three engine inlets--two on either side (like an F-18) and a large

ventral
one. That makes no sense and I think the model is notional. Other

than
that, I haven't seen any serious consideration of swing wings in many
years.



D


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 917 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!



  #17  
Old November 30th 06, 03:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?


fudog50 wrote:
Stick with the original arguement-

"requirements changed and the swing-wing no longer fits
the existing problem set"

No military scenarios exist currently that would make it an option for
the cost.

Vector thrust has taken the place of swing wing.


As John has pointed out, swing wing was for high speed dash + slow
speed manuvering with a A/C big enough to carry the Phoenix, able to
come aboard small decks like the Forrestal class. Vectored thrust and
swing wing don't do the same thing at all. Better wings and engines and
digital flight controls have 'replaced' swing wing. Remember when the
Turkey was designed, by whom and why...Swing wing was already stuck in
the designers and $ people heads via the AArdvark...needed a CV capable
Phoenix carrier, Grumman was the USN's darlings...hence the F-14, by
Grumman...




On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:31:53 GMT, "DDAY"
wrote:

What are the carrier landing speeds for:

The F-14 Tomcat?

The F-18A Hornet?

The F-18E/F Super Hornet?




I'm working on an article about the Space Shuttle and I want to address the
commonly repeated claim that the shuttle is a "mistake" because its
technology is being abandoned.

I'd like to compare it to swing-wing technology. During the 1960s, the
swing-wing was the rage in new aircraft design and it ended up in quite a
few aircraft such as the F-111, the F-14, the MiG-23, Tu-22, MiG-27, the
B-1, and the Russsian Tu-160. But the Tu-160, designed in the early 1980s,
appears to have been the last swing-wing aircraft.

What I'm trying to explore is why that is. Why was this technology really
popular for a couple of decades and then phased out? I don't think you can
say that better airfoil or wing technology replaced it. It's just that
requirements changed and the swing-wing was a solution that no longer fit
the existing problem set. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.




D


  #18  
Old November 30th 06, 05:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
John Weiss[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?

wrote...

As John has pointed out, swing wing was for high speed dash + slow
speed manuvering with a A/C big enough to carry the Phoenix, able to
come aboard small decks like the Forrestal class.


I don't think anyone considers Forrestal -- the first of the "super
carriers" -- a "small deck"! OTOH, I watched a pair of turkeys land on
Midway... Now THAT was a "clobbered deck"!


  #19  
Old November 30th 06, 09:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?


John Weiss wrote:
wrote...

As John has pointed out, swing wing was for high speed dash + slow
speed manuvering with a A/C big enough to carry the Phoenix, able to
come aboard small decks like the Forrestal class.


I don't think anyone considers Forrestal -- the first of the "super
carriers" -- a "small deck"! OTOH, I watched a pair of turkeys land on
Midway... Now THAT was a "clobbered deck"!


If ya flew Turkeys onboard FID, like I did, it was a small deck.
Particularly after landing abord IKE, America and Nimitz...

Yep, I was there in VF-151 when those 2 landed during the North Pacific
'Fun-Ex'....Midway-maru had more acreage that FID, BTW-BUT Midway
always felt like it was 'small'...

  #20  
Old December 1st 06, 01:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
John Carrier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default Landing speeds for naval aircraft?


wrote in message
oups.com...

John Weiss wrote:
wrote...

As John has pointed out, swing wing was for high speed dash + slow
speed manuvering with a A/C big enough to carry the Phoenix, able to
come aboard small decks like the Forrestal class.


I don't think anyone considers Forrestal -- the first of the "super
carriers" -- a "small deck"! OTOH, I watched a pair of turkeys land on
Midway... Now THAT was a "clobbered deck"!


If ya flew Turkeys onboard FID, like I did, it was a small deck.
Particularly after landing abord IKE, America and Nimitz...

Yep, I was there in VF-151 when those 2 landed during the North Pacific
'Fun-Ex'....Midway-maru had more acreage that FID, BTW-BUT Midway
always felt like it was 'small'...


Small was Oriskany, Hancock, and Lex and their sisters. Night traps on two
of them.

R / John


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? Rick Umali Piloting 29 February 15th 06 05:40 AM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 December 2nd 04 08:00 AM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 April 5th 04 03:04 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 2 February 3rd 04 12:41 AM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 July 4th 03 04:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.